MUB vs SPAB ETF Comparison
Compare MUB and SPAB across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between MUB and SPAB?
MUB is iShares National Muni Bond ETF, while SPAB is State Street SPDR Portfolio Aggregate Bond ETF. MUB is tied to Fixed Income; SPAB is tied to Fixed Income. SPAB is broader by holdings count, with 8,507 positions versus 6,997 for MUB. SPAB has the lower expense ratio in the current fund profile.
| Metric | MUB | SPAB | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.05% | 0.03% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $44.4B | $10.2B | Fund |
| Holdings | 6,997 | 8,507 | Fund |
| Average volume | 6,565,519 | 2,627,881 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Fixed Income | Fixed Income | Fund |
| 1Y return | -2.2% | -3.9% | Performance |
| YTD return | -2.9% | -3% | Performance |
| Annualized volatility | 3.2% | 3.9% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -5.7% | -5.3% | Risk |
| Beta | 0.09 | 0.10 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.09 | -2.11 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | -2.48 | -3.01 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 51/100 | 50/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 5/10 | 5/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 25/100 | 25/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 91/100 | 94/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares National Muni Bond ETF vs State Street SPDR Portfolio Aggregate Bond ETF
MUB leads
MUB leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Quality.
Fragile: 0 of 4 evidence groups support MUB, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares National Muni Bond ETF
State Street SPDR Portfolio Aggregate Bond ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MUB over SPAB, 51 versus 50 as of Sep 11, 2026. MUB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality. MUB also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 0 of 4 covered evidence groups favor MUB today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. MUB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares National Muni Bond ETF and State Street SPDR Portfolio Aggregate Bond ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison for both ETFs using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare MUB and SPAB against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Quality69 vs 62MUB +7
- Risk Resilience91 vs 94Even
- Value36 vs 36Even
- Momentum25 vs 25Even
0 of 4 evidence groups favor MUB. MUB’s edge is concentrated in quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -1
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
MUB's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MUB and SPAB both carry a full feed there.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
MUBMUB on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
EvenDownside measures are level or not covered.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | MUB | SPAB | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.05% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $44.4B | $10.2B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 6,997 | 8,507 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 6,565,519 | 2,627,881 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 3.2% | 3.9% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -5.7% | -5.3% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.09 | -2.11 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.09 | 0.10 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
Weighted holdings overlap is not available for this pair. Sector exposure above is a related but different measure — it says how much of each fund sits in the same parts of the market, not how much of the same securities they hold.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, MUB or SPAB?
SPAB currently has more reported holdings, with 8,507 positions versus 6,997.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SPAB has the lower reported expense ratio in the current fund profile.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
The current dataset does not show a higher-yield winner.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
SPAB has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
SPAB has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
MUB currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 51 to 50.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
0 of 4 covered evidence groups favor MUB. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 51 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 36 vs 36 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -2.4% vs -1.7%; vs 200-day -3.1% vs -2.5% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 91 vs 94 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MUB and SPAB and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on MUB.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10MUB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MUB +1
- 51 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- SPAB +1
- 52 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 55 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- MUB +8
- 61 vs 53
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Jul 27 when SPAB moved ahead of MUB.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
2 bullish / 5 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.02%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
2 bullish / 5 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.57%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
MUB leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.44%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.08%, AIQ 0 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1SPAB closes the Quality gap — currently 7 points behind, the largest single contributor to MUB's edge.
- 2SPAB's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3MUB's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 5 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | MUB | SPAB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.3% | -0.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.8% | -1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.9% | -2.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.5% | -3.7% |
| Year to date | -2.9% | -3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -2.2% | -3.9% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | MUB | SPAB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 15.2 | 27.2 |
| ADX (14) | 44.7 | 17.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.4% | -1.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -3.1% | -2.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 4.3% | 4.5% |
Risk
Split| Metric | MUB | SPAB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.09 | 0.1 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.09 | -2.11 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.48 | -3.01 |
| Max drawdown | -5.7% | -5.3% |
| Current drawdown | -5.7% | -5.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 3.2% | 3.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -0.4% | -0.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MUB or SPAB?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MUB is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 51 against SPAB's 50. The edge comes from quality. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is MUB or SPAB the better buy right now?
MUB carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 0 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MUB over SPAB?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MUB leads Quality by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, MUB or SPAB?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, MUB or SPAB?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, MUB or SPAB?
The two are level on Momentum. Momentum is one of the four weighted factors in the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, MUB or SPAB?
The two are close on downside measures. Downside measures are level or not covered. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is MUB more profitable than SPAB?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is MUB's lead over SPAB getting stronger or weaker?
MUB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-27, when SPAB moved ahead of MUB.
What would change the MUB vs SPAB verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SPAB closes the Quality gap — currently 7 points behind, the largest single contributor to MUB's edge; SPAB's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; MUB's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 5 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about MUB and SPAB?
MUB: 2 bullish / 5 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. SPAB: 2 bullish / 5 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on MUB is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On SPAB it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare MUB and SPAB with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.